By John Erath
I spent last week in Korea, courtesy of the 38 North Program of the Stimson Center, in association with the Korea Institute of Nuclear Nonproliferation and Control. I was asked to participate in a workshop and discuss the prospects for U.S. policy following the 2024 Presidential election. The workshop went well, but more important to me was the opportunity to see things from the Korean perspective. Living and working in Washington, one tends to develop something of a Washington-centric view of nuclear issues. Visiting another country helps with understanding that not everyone shares American preconceptions or agrees with some of the assumptions upon which U.S. policy is built while providing a broader understanding. Here are three examples:
- In almost every stop, I was asked about the possibility that North Korea might try to influence the U.S. election by means of a nuclear test or other provocation. Although such an act would be unlikely to prove effective, the possibility that Kim Jung Un would make an attempt seems greater when he is a neighbor. With a hostile, nuclear-armed North Korea next door, the chances of a provocation seem more immediate. Although North Korea may not be an issue being debated for the U.S. election, it is always in the forefront in Seoul.
- The possibility of South Korea developing nuclear weapons of its own to deter the North is a serious topic of debate. Although it seems clear that nuclear weapons in the South will not make the Peninsula safer, and such weapons would be enormously expensive and illegal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a majority of Koreans believe they would be better off nuclear, a view that cannot be dismissed in policy circles. While Koreans are aware that the alliance with the United States includes the nuclear umbrella, several expressed some version of “Why would America put some of its people at risk for another country?” This concern seems independent of who is in the White House but will grow stronger as North Korea makes threats and tests missiles. The supposed example of Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons and suffering invasion also factors in.
- In western countries, the challenge of nuclear weapons is often described in brief as “disarmament.” In South Korea, it is more commonly “non-proliferation.” Instead of approaching the issue as stemming from too many nuclear weapons in the world, Koreans focus on keeping North Korea from building more. It is a telling difference of how the ROK prioritizes its interests. I did not hear anyone use the word disarmament. Instead, the alliance with the United States, especially its nuclear aspect, remains the foundation of security.
Travel brings many benefits beyond seeing new sights and eating different foods. It allows one to look at familiar issues from different perspectives. In the case of South Korea, a visit will highlight the importance of the alliance with the United States for regional security, but also the centrality of nuclear weapons to the question of security on the Peninsula. This presents a problem. Reducing Korean security to nuclear weapons invites reasoning that if denuclearization is not happening, more weapons may be needed. It is important, rather, to consider U.S. nuclear capabilities as a means to an end, rather than the solution to Korean security. Similarly, the other side of the issue is not simply North Korean nuclear weapons, but the overall threat of North Korean hostility. Understanding these factors was worth the jet lag.
